Cronise

Cronise v. Garghill

Good Law
4 Cal. 120
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 1854California255 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Murray, J.

delivered the opinion -of the Court.

*122 This action was commenced under the Statute concerning Forcible Entries and Unlawful Detainers. The suit was instituted before the Recorder of Sacramento City, and afterwards transferred to a Justice of the Peace.

* The grounds of error assigned, are, first, the want [122] of jurisdiction of the Justice; second, that the complaint does not contain any allegation of the plaintiff’s possession.

We decided, in the case of Burnett et al. v. Madden, that the Recorder of Sacramento City had no jurisdiction in cases of this character. Under that decision, there can be no doubt, if he had proceeded to hear and determine the cause, the judgment would have been a nullity. But the case was transferred to a magistrate having jurisdiction, by consent of the parties. ■

The appearance of the defendant, and consent fixing the time of trial, were a waiver of his right to be brought in by complaint and summons.

The complaint alleges that the premises “are unlawfully withheld from the plaintiff.” The Statute does not require an allegation of possession. The allegation may be somewhat defective, and too general. It is not the policy of the law, however,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.